In an earlier letter I asked if we were guilty of placing our church traditions above adherence to Scripture.
We didn't finish answering the question.
Many want to know,
"What's wrong with tradition? Are traditions bad? Or, are they good?"First of all, think of traditions like a tool - such as an automobile. It can carry a family to the store to buy food. Or, it can carry thieves to a bank to rob it.
In itself,
tradition is neutral. Neither good or bad.
It is a vehicle that can be used to convey truth to future generations. Likewise, it can convey falsehood to those same generations.
Most of the time we inherit traditions without the knowledge of how that tradition got started and what truth or error it may contain.
Without a doubt,
traditions can bring good into our lives. That is,as long as they convey truth.
It is when traditions are harbingers of error that
we have to be wary.The danger is that
we accept so many traditions on face value without verifying the message they carry.
That's why it is easy to fall into a tradition of error.
If you've seen Fiddler on the Roof ( a great movie, by the way) then you have a basic point of reference to the subject of tradition. Trevya, the father, sings a solo about it.
He admits they do many things because of tradition and it's these traditions that help his village know who they are.
The traditions provide their cohesiveness as well as their identity.Yet at the same time he confesses he doesn't know how some of them got started, or why they are important. One of the traditions is that the men always were their hats -
but he doesn't know why.Here's a story that makes the point as well.
A young girl watched as her mother prepared a ham for dinner. The mother took a big sharp knife and cut off about 1/3 of the ham, then put the rest in a pan and place it in the oven.
"Why did you cut off a big chunk of the ham, Mama?" the girl asked.
Her Mama replied, "Well, cause that's the way my Mama always did it."
"But, why did she do it?" the little girl persisted.
"Honestly, I don't really know. Why don't we call and ask her?"
They get grandma on the phone and ask her about the ham. Granny replies that she doesn't know either. She always did that because her mother did it. She thought maybe it tasted better that way.
Finally, they get great grandma on the phone. What was her reply?
"Oh honey. I cut the ham because the little oven I had was too small for a full sized ham. I had to cut it to make it fit."
Did you catch the moral of the story?
We can do things for generations without knowing why. We just assume it must have a good purpose because we have faith and confidence in the people who taught us.
Yet, we have to ask, who taught them?
Then again, where did their teachers learn it? If we are persistent, eventually we will find the source of the teaching. The discovery we often make is that much truth was lost down through the ages.
In some areas, it doesn't matter. Traditions can be fun and a source of family unity. But, for those of us pursuing Scriptural Truth,
the result could be devastating.That's because concerning many of our traditions,
our faith in them is a blind faith. They do not deserve our devotion.
If the truth were to be told, few if any, living shepherds of the flock really know what lies beneath the trappings of the traditions practiced in the modern church.
Few have actually asked the tough questions that challenge the tradition's existence.
And, if anyone does ask penetrating questions, they could be labeled a kook or even a heretic and shunned from the group. This has the effect of reinforcing the status quo and immutability of the tradition.
With all that in mind, let's look at a specific example.
Decide for yourself whether we have the Scriptural authority to use this tradition.
Use of the word "church"Did you know it was the King James Version that popularized the word "church"? For some unknown reason, the translators coined this word to replace the correct word. The Greek word is "ekklesia" a "calling out" which is the equivalent of the Hebrew for "assembly or congregation".
This same term is used to describe the children of Israel in the wilderness.
Earlier Tyndale uniformly used "congregation" throughout his translation. So whether it was a reference in the Tenak (Old Covenant) or the Renewed, the term congregation applied to both.
In fact, Tyndale only used the word "churches" in Acts 19:37 to represent heathen temples!The root of "church" traces back to "circe". "Circe" was the goddess/daughter of Helios, the Sun deity. You will recognize the many related words such as circle, circus, circuit, etc. Originally, Circe was a Greek goddess whose name was written as "Kirke"- and pronounced as such. You can see this form in Scotland as Kirk, in German as Kirche, and in Netherlands as Kerk.
So, our use of the word church is another way trappings of sun-worship have become mixed with true Messianic belief. It subtly leads you to erroneously believe that the congregations in the Renewed Covenant were somehow different from those in the Tenak.
Not only that, but
if you take Exodus 23:13 seriously where Yahweh prohibits His people from even uttering the names of other deities, then
this is a problem.Still, you may be among those who think because it's been a long time, and no one remembers the true meaning, then somehow it's alright.
You might consider this problem with that kind of thinking:
Yahweh remembers.One last point to ponder:
The
"church" building today is filled with so many unregenerate sinners who attend for social reasons. Since the word church today has come to mean a building or a place (rather than a people), isn't that a further reason to go back to what Scripture really says?
Wouldn't the truth of the Gospel be more clearly defined to the lost if truly repentant believers named themselves "Congregations of the Called Out Ones?"What do you say, maybe we could start a new tradition?
